Local resident submissions to the High Peak Council ...

Local resident submissions to the High Peak Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 14 Submissions from local residents.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between

bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Comment text:The High Peak Wards are okay and the 43 Councillors are, too. However, the High Peak Parish Wards of "Chinley, Buxworth and Brownside [Chinley]" and "Chapel-en-le-Frith [Chapel]", are NOT okay. "Chinley" needs to include the hamlet of "Whitehough" because it is so close to Chinley village; shops, railway station, schools, children's playgrounds etc. More importantly, because a huge housing development has just gained Outline Planning Permission for the old 'Dorma' factory site; for some 320+ houses!! 'New residents' in that development would have a very strong identity, with "Chinley" and the local community of "Chinley". For perspective, there are currently, approximately 1150 dwellings in the whole of "Chinley, Buxworth and Brownside" Parish. Hence, 320+ more dwellings, is a massive invasion of and infrastructure / resource-strain for this locality. Financially, "Chinley" parish would be significantly worse-off, IF "Whithough" and the planned new development, were to remain in "Chapel" Parish.

High Peak District

Personal Details:

Name: Nic Bridge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Map Features:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Page 1 of 2Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

22/11/2013https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2623

of 2Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal


1

Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, HelenSent: 16 December 2013 12:09To: Hinds, AlexSubject: High Peak ER-Boundary Consultation for High Peak

4 of 4

From: vicky brown Sent: 15 December 2013 13:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Consultation for High Peak I am a resident of Shirebrook Park in Glossop, Derbyshire. I understand that you are consulting on where the boundaries should be for different areas in the High Peak. We are currently represented within the Old Glossop ward but I feel it would benefit Shirebrook to have its own councillor as the demographic on the estate is completely different to that of Old Glossop. (Shirebrook is a family estate in the main, with residents commuting out of the area to work.) I feel having a separate councillor would make it easier for the councillor to address issues that affect Shirebrook (such as speeding within the estate, school provision, lack of grit bins on the estate etc). Should you need my address, my details are V Brown,

. Please note I do not want to receive any junk mail. Kind regards, Victoria Brown

Comment text:As someone who lives in Glossop, I want to make a few proposals for the ward boundaries for the Glossop area. Firstly, I don't see any reason why Shirebrook should still be part of Old Glossop; everyone knows it's a completely separate area and nothing like Old Glossop, so it should have it's own ward. In my opinion it's perfect for having it's own ward - Hurst Brook separates it from the rest of the ward, it has its own separate identity and it looks like it'd be big enough for it's own ward now the estate has been completed. Secondly, I think it's very odd that Gamesley ward doesn't cover the whole of Gamesley estate. I guess the estate may be too big to all be in one ward, but I do think as much of it as possible should be in its own ward, rather than being in Hadfield South ward. Gamesley has a really good community, with their own residents association and community events such as bonfire nights and things like that, so having more of the estate in Gamesley ward would surely be better for them? I know I'd think it was daft if I lived on Gamesley estate but wasn't in Gamesley ward - it just seems such an odd boundary. Talking of odd boundaries, I think the boundary between Hadfield North and Hadfield South should be changed too. It just makes no sense at the moment - it splits an area of Hadfield that should be together in the same ward. In my opinion it should be Hadfield North that's the two seat ward, with Hadfield South being the one-seat ward. That would make more sense, as the southern part of Hadfield South ward is definitely different to the northern part of the ward. It'd probably be easier to find a natural boundary for them somewhere around there too, as there's a bit of a break where there's a river, before you get to the proper southern part of Hadfield. Looking at numbers, obviously some of Padfield ward should be put into Hadfield North ward -Padfield is massive at the moment, but that's easy to fix, as there's a bit of Hadfield in Padfield ward, and some of that could move across quite easily. Simmondley also looks to be too big, so I think the bits of Simmondley ward that aren't actually part of Simmondley - like Charlestown and Dinting Vale - should be moved out of it. That'd make it smaller. Oh and isn't Old Glossop too big as well at the moment? I don't see why King Edward Avenue and Riverside Close and the roads around there are in it, they're on the same little estate as roads near it which are in Howard Town ward! They should be moved out of Old Glossop into Howard Town ward, which would make Old Glossop smaller. But don't forget about Shirebrook! It's daft that Shirebrook is still part of Old Glossop ward.

High Peak District

Personal Details:

Name: Jamie Douglas

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Map Features:




1

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 17 December 2013 09:10To: Hinds, AlexSubject: FW: Councillor for Shirebrook Estate in Glossop

From: Fred Evans Sent: 16 December 2013 17:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Councillor for Shirebrook Estate in Glossop Dear Sir/Madam I believe the residents of the Shirebrook estate in Glossop should have their own local councillor. The estate has grown to over 600 houses in the past 30 years but local representation reflects the previous topography. Kind regards Fred Evans

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Buck, RichardSent: 23 December 2013 09:40To: Hinds, AlexSubject: FW: Review of High Peak Boundary - Hadfield South Ward

Hi Alex – Another submission for High Peak…

From: STEPHEN FOOTE Sent: 20 December 2013 16:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Review of High Peak Boundary - Hadfield South Ward In your review of the boundaries of the High Peak Council can I ask you to make a special look at the current ward boundary of Hadfield South Ward. At present it comprises mainly residents of Hadfield but a sizeable number of people living in Gamesley. The two areas have totally different communities and different needs. Superficially on the map they appear to be about a mile from each other but there is a huge valley in between and, because of this, people living in Hadfield would rarely, if ever, go to Gamesley and visa versa. There is no need to. Children of Hadfield go to Hadfield primary schools and those in Gamesley to either Gamesley or Charlesworth schools. Each area has its own Children's Centre and Nursery school. People in Hadfield would do their shopping either in Hadfield or Glossop never Gamesley. There is no public transport that I am aware that connect the two areas other than taking a bus or train into Glossop and then getting another bus out of Glossop. Those people living in Gamesley can, if they so want, be a member of the Gamesley Residents Association, Hadfield residents could not. Hadfield does not in itself have a residents association, the nearest thing is perhaps either the Hadfield and Padfield Heritage Trail or Friends of Hadfield Hall (a large building in the centre of Hadfield) which a group of us have bought back into Community use for the residents of Hadfield to use for social and community group usage. This Hall is used extensively by the Community and to my knowledge (and I am the Booking Secretary) it has never been used by Gamesley Residents. I appreciate that the change to the boundary will have some knock-on effects on electoral numbers and I would personally welcome Hadfield South becoming wholly within the Hadfield area and being reduced to a one seat ward. Consideration might be given to drawing the boundary between Hadfield South and North using either the river (between Higher Barn Road and Lower Barn Road) or Woolley Bridge Road/Hadfield Road. This "new" ward would have I suspect 95% of the property built in Hadfield since 1960 and these residents often have the same issues, anti-social behaviour, lack of amenities, dog fouling, council tax rises (newer houses tend to be put in a higher council tax band). If a new Hadfield South ward was created then the Councillor (whoever was elected) could concentrate their time and energy dealing with problems faced by residents in just one area, the southern area of Hadfield. Steve Foote

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Jeremy Frost Sent: 16 December 2013 12:53To: Reviews@Subject:

Dear Sir As a resident of for over 25 years, I wish to register my view that Shirebrook Park (an estate comprising 600+ properties) should have it's own Councillor to represent its interests rather than continue to be included within "Old Glossop" Ward, which is itself an entirely different part of the Glossop. Yours faithfully Jeremy Frost

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, HelenSent: 16 December 2013 12:08To: Hinds, AlexSubject: High Peak ER-Shirebrook Glossop

Hi Alex, Please see below 1 of 4 subs for High Peak. 3 more will follow. Regards, Helen

From: paul hitchen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 December 2013 10:44 To: Reviews@ Subject: Shirebrook Glossop Hello I would like to express my wish for there to be a councillor from Shirebrook in Glossop for Shirebrook. thank you best regards Paul

Paul Hitchen

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, HelenSent: 16 December 2013 12:09To: Hinds, AlexSubject: High Peak ER-SHIREBROOK

3 of 4 From: Michael James Sent: 15 December 2013 13:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: SHIREBROOK Hi, Shirebrook is a completely different environment to Old Glossop and I suspect it also has a larger population. For these reasons alone representation through the Old Glossop Ward seems inappropriate. Michael James

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Buck, RichardSent: 23 December 2013 09:37To: Hinds, AlexSubject: FW: Boundaries review High Paek Botough Council.

Hi Alex, Here is a submission for High Peak. Can you log and respond etc. Thanks, Richard.

From: Peter Kay Sent: 21 December 2013 10:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundaries review High Paek Botough Council. Having seen the proposed changes to the boundaries of the High Peak, I fully support the proposed changes. Thank you Peter Kay

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 17 December 2013 09:12To: Hinds, AlexSubject: FW: Consultation on Ward boundaries

From: Alan Shaw Sent: 17 December 2013 00:26 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Consultation on Ward boundaries Dear Sir/madam, Proposal to retain Old Glossop Ward, Glossop, High Peak. The local Conservative Party has suggested that it may be in the interest of Shirebrook Park residents to lobby for their own Councillor. As a Shirebrook Park resident I note that Shirebrook Park is an almost exclusively residential development (no shops, no schools) and I do not believe that this proposal would create a balanced Ward within the Local Government framework. Splitting Old Glossop into “Old Glossop (North)” and “Old Glossop (South)”, (where Old Glossop (South) would effectively be Shirebrook Park), the boundary between the two being Hurst Brook, would leave Old Glossop North holding the main leisure area (Manor Park) and the infants/junior school (Duke of Norfolk), both of which are of interest to the residents of Shirebrook Park. I believe that it is therefore in the interest of the residents of Shirebrook Park that our elected councillors continue to represent our democratic view for the larger, existing, Old Glossop Ward. At present 2 councillors represent the interest of the Old Glossop Ward, which currently spans a diverse community and that trying to split this into separate Wards would create Wards with very different make-ups. Electorate projections for Old Glossop into 2019 show the electorate for this Ward remaining at under 4000 and as the recent new house building is now concluding in this area further radical growth is not currently expected past 2019. In summation I therefore believe that the Old Glossop Ward should be retained as currently drawn, and that two councillors should continue to serve this Ward. Kind regards,

1

Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, HelenSent: 16 December 2013 12:08To: Hinds, AlexSubject: High Peak ER-Shirebrook, Glossop

2 of 4

From: Anne Steele [ Sent: 14 December 2013 16:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Shirebrook, Glossop Dear Sir I am writing to express my view that Shirebrook estate in Glossop (High Peak Borough Council) should have its own Local Councillor. The estate is now complete and is of a size to warrant its own representation on High Peak Borough Council. Yours faithfully Anne Steele

Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2728[18/12/2013 15:32:47]

Comment text:I suggest that the Old Glossop Ward, which at present has two Councillors, should be split approximately along Hurst Brook, as the areasto the North and South have a significantly different character. The northern section should remain as Old Glossop, and the southernsection should become Shirebrook Park Ward. In addition I would suggest that the St Johns Ward stretches too far to the East. The areato the East of properties fronting onto the A624 road should be reallocated to Tintwistle, Padfield, Old Glossop/Shirebrook and Whitfieldwards

High Peak District

Personal Details:

Name: Charles Steele

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Map Features:


Comment text:I live five miles southwest of Buxton and am in Burbage ward.I hope that I will not be moved.I am still furious about the changes made to the county council boundaries when I was moved from Buxton West to Buxton North and East without any notification and despite the fact that I live southwest of Buxton.I now feel that I am not properly represented at county level and am angry that it happened without me knowing about it.I still don't understand why I was moved and I don't want the same thing to happen again because it would mean being represented ineffectively at both borough and county level.I feel very strongly about this issue and would still like to know why I was moved at county level.

High Peak District

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Wardle

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Map Features:




1

Hinds, Alex

From: Dan Trimmer Sent: 16 December 2013 13:37To: Reviews@Subject: Shirebrook (High Peak) Councillor

We have lived on the Glossop's Shirebrook estate for over four years and believe strongly that we should have our own councillor. The estate is a coherent community and has its own problems: crime, transport, road clearance and access, and drainage. Many of these issues are not shared with other parts of Glossop, so we think it makes sense to have a dedicated representative. Yours sincerely, Jane & Daniel Trimmer

Local resident submissions to the High Peak Council ...

Documents

Transcript of Local resident submissions to the High Peak Council ...